Spring PCS to buy all of Qwest Wireless' subscribers

My identity is none of your business. Why do you want to know?
Do you want to ask me out on a date or something?
Don't swing that way.
No where did you see me trying to convince anyone that Sprints
coverage is crap. The whole point is customers who bought Qwest
for whatever reason now are going to be on Sprints network. And
I bet they won't be told. I'd have a problem with that if I paid for
Qwest wireless. Wireless coverage isn't transparent to customers
like landline service. An d I am very aware of the local rankings
of coverage and we ARE consistently higher than Sprint where
we do have coverage.
Who cares who you would keep employed IF you a manager.
There are a lot of pissed off people here because the f******
Qwest CEO practically destroyed the company and its credibility
by encouraging funny accounting and then tried to blame the
accounting firm. You bet I'm pissed off. Its my company and I
hate to see it f***** up.




Isaiah Beard wrote:

> ccvcv wrote:
>
> > Yea... into unemployment. Ever been there?
>
> I have. But telling people to stfu (and constantly changing your
> identity on here) does nothing to improve your situation. It just shows
> you as being an employee with an axe to grind, and a very biased agenda
> to pursue. No wonder you're hiding your identity: if I were a
> prospective employer, I certainly wouldn't hire a guy with such a
> temper. And if I were a management person at Qwest, I wouldn't keep you
> even if there WERE no plans for layoffs (and my understanding is, none
> have been officially announced yet anyway).
>
> The last time I was laid off, I wasn't happy with the company that did
> it either. But I didn't launch into some campaign, cnvicing customers
> that the service of the acquiring company was crap (and that's an
> opinion based only on your percieved threat of losing your job... not
> very credible).

---

› See More: Spring PCS to buy all of Qwest Wireless' subscribers

What are your sources that say Qwest ranks better than Sprint in most of
their markets? I find that hard to believe.

--
-Larry
Sprint user since 1997



ccvcv <[email protected]> wrote in article <[email protected]>:
> My identity is none of your business. Why do you want to know?
> Do you want to ask me out on a date or something?
> Don't swing that way.
> No where did you see me trying to convince anyone that Sprints
> coverage is crap. The whole point is customers who bought Qwest
> for whatever reason now are going to be on Sprints network. And
> I bet they won't be told. I'd have a problem with that if I paid for
> Qwest wireless. Wireless coverage isn't transparent to customers
> like landline service. An d I am very aware of the local rankings
> of coverage and we ARE consistently higher than Sprint where
> we do have coverage.
> Who cares who you would keep employed IF you a manager.
> There are a lot of pissed off people here because the f******
> Qwest CEO practically destroyed the company and its credibility
> by encouraging funny accounting and then tried to blame the
> accounting firm. You bet I'm pissed off. Its my company and I
> hate to see it f***** up.
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

ccvcv wrote:

> My identity is none of your business. Why do you want to know?

It helps in determining your intentions, especially to show you're not
some shill, short-seller, or other person with an agenda to persue.
Besides, I've generally found through my travels on usenet that those
who are so paranoid about giving so much as a name tends to be a troll.

Besides, you're frequently changing your alias, and that's just
discourteous. It makes it difficult for people to keep track of who
said what in a thread. It's not impossible, but I personally don't
enjoy having to track responses by looking at header information.

> Do you want to ask me out on a date or something?
> Don't swing that way.

Even if I did, you don't exactly have a winning personality.

But don't worry, you've given me all the info I need to know. Clearly,
you have a vendetta to pursue.

> No where did you see me trying to convince anyone that Sprints
> coverage is crap.

I didn't say you did. But you did accuse Sprint of slamming.

http://tinyurl.com/ie09


> The whole point is customers who bought Qwest
> for whatever reason now are going to be on Sprints network. And
> I bet they won't be told. I'd have a problem with that if I paid for
> Qwest wireless.

Well, I certinaly don't think it would take an act of congress to find
out. And if these customers are still paying Qwest, why is it such a
big deal that they're not told (correction: not told in the very clear,
blatant, loud terms that you would find acceptable... perhaps an
annoying voice notification - "by the way, you're on Sprint's network" -
before your call goes through) what network they're on? Verizon doesn't
seem to find it that important to tell you who you roam on through the
America's Choice Network. Likewise, Nextel doesn't see fit to notify
people when they're not on Nextel's Network, but rather a "Nextel
Partners" network, of which nearly every "second teir" market they cover
is a member of.

And even better, Cingular customers don't seem to mind very much that
they're not told which markets are Cingular's native network, and which
markets (such as NYC) are actually run by T-Mobile.

Along the same lines, Sprint PCS doesn't go through pains to tell people
that they're actually on Alamosa PCS (Arizona, Texas, and the West), or
Horizon PCS (midwest markets), and probably soon Qwest. Why? because
from a billing perspective, it doesn't matter. The rates are the same
and the features for the most part are the same, and the coverage is
designed such that for all intensive purposes, your phone will operate
as if it were on Sprint's native network.

Likewise, a Qwest wireless customer will probably not need to care
whether they are on Qwest or Sprint's network, because the billing and
features won't be any different, and the check still gets cashed by the
same people.

> Wireless coverage isn't transparent to customers
> like landline service.


How not? I just described above several instances by virtualy every
major carrier where native coverage is augmented by affiliate networks
and most subscribers are generally unaware that a change has occured.


> An d I am very aware of the local rankings
> of coverage and we ARE consistently higher than Sprint where
> we do have coverage.

Good for you! I'm certain Qwest customers will probably continue to
enjoy that coverage for quite a while yet.

> Who cares who you would keep employed IF you a manager.

Actually, I am.

> There are a lot of pissed off people here because the f******
> Qwest CEO practically destroyed the company and its credibility
> by encouraging funny accounting and then tried to blame the
> accounting firm. You bet I'm pissed off.

So now Qwest management is the problem, and NOT Sprint?

I think you need to find out who your anger is really directed at here
before you vent.

Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:


> Besides, you're frequently changing your alias, and that's just
> discourteous. It makes it difficult for people to keep track of who
> said what in a thread. It's not impossible, but I personally don't
> enjoy having to track responses by looking at header information.

More importantly, for people who use killfiles to ignore threads and people,
it makes it more difficult to ignore him/her/it.

> Even if I did, you don't exactly have a winning personality.

More like "whining personality."

> I didn't say you did. But you did accuse Sprint of slamming.

which just proves that s/h/it does not have a clue about the definition of
slamming.

>> There are a lot of pissed off people here because the f******
>> Qwest CEO practically destroyed the company and its credibility
>> by encouraging funny accounting and then tried to blame the
>> accounting firm. You bet I'm pissed off.
>
> So now Qwest management is the problem, and NOT Sprint?

At Ameritech, Richard Notebaert did a much better job of running the place
than the idiots/con-men/borderline criminals at SBC that run the place now.

I personally thought it was a good thing for Qwest that he ended up there.

To the troll: dude, if you're so pissed off at Qwest, go find another job...

--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Svcs. [The Fusion of Content & Connectivity]
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Independent drive testing. One of which was done very
recently. Of course, Qwest doesn't cover as large an
area as Sprint. But where they do it is better. Especially
in Seattle and Portland.



Larry Thomas wrote:

> What are your sources that say Qwest ranks better than Sprint in most of
> their markets? I find that hard to believe.
>
> --
> -Larry
> Sprint user since 1997
>
> ccvcv <[email protected]> wrote in article <[email protected]>:
> > My identity is none of your business. Why do you want to know?
> > Do you want to ask me out on a date or something?
> > Don't swing that way.
> > No where did you see me trying to convince anyone that Sprints
> > coverage is crap. The whole point is customers who bought Qwest
> > for whatever reason now are going to be on Sprints network. And
> > I bet they won't be told. I'd have a problem with that if I paid for
> > Qwest wireless. Wireless coverage isn't transparent to customers
> > like landline service. An d I am very aware of the local rankings
> > of coverage and we ARE consistently higher than Sprint where
> > we do have coverage.
> > Who cares who you would keep employed IF you a manager.
> > There are a lot of pissed off people here because the f******
> > Qwest CEO practically destroyed the company and its credibility
> > by encouraging funny accounting and then tried to blame the
> > accounting firm. You bet I'm pissed off. Its my company and I
> > hate to see it f***** up.
> >
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

BTW Is Intents and Purposes not Intensive Purposes

In this modern age of lack of disclosure (phone companies
being the worst) they should inform all customers what will
soon happen.
Would you feel better if I told you my name was John Smith?
Would you hire a private eye to verify this?
You wouldn't know what my actual name really was even if
I told you. There are TOO many good reasons to not identify
myself on NGs. You might even be able to come up with a
few on your own.
And you have a winning personality?

I didn't accuse Sprint of slamming. But Qwest is doing something
very similiar to it despite the letter of the law. Full disclosure is
such a nice thing these days. What do you have against it? Let
the customer paying the bill decide if its important. Hell.... if
he is on Sprints network already... maybe he can 'switch' and
get a better deal.
We are not talking about roaming here.... primary service.
Did you take a recent poll with Cingular customers to verify
your assertion?
I am blaming Qwest for all of this, not Sprint.



Isaiah Beard wrote:

> ccvcv wrote:
>
> > My identity is none of your business. Why do you want to know?
>
> It helps in determining your intentions, especially to show you're not
> some shill, short-seller, or other person with an agenda to persue.
> Besides, I've generally found through my travels on usenet that those
> who are so paranoid about giving so much as a name tends to be a troll.
>
> Besides, you're frequently changing your alias, and that's just
> discourteous. It makes it difficult for people to keep track of who
> said what in a thread. It's not impossible, but I personally don't
> enjoy having to track responses by looking at header information.
>
> > Do you want to ask me out on a date or something?
> > Don't swing that way.
>
> Even if I did, you don't exactly have a winning personality.
>
> But don't worry, you've given me all the info I need to know. Clearly,
> you have a vendetta to pursue.
>
> > No where did you see me trying to convince anyone that Sprints
> > coverage is crap.
>
> I didn't say you did. But you did accuse Sprint of slamming.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ie09
>
> > The whole point is customers who bought Qwest
> > for whatever reason now are going to be on Sprints network. And
> > I bet they won't be told. I'd have a problem with that if I paid for
> > Qwest wireless.
>
> Well, I certinaly don't think it would take an act of congress to find
> out. And if these customers are still paying Qwest, why is it such a
> big deal that they're not told (correction: not told in the very clear,
> blatant, loud terms that you would find acceptable... perhaps an
> annoying voice notification - "by the way, you're on Sprint's network" -
> before your call goes through) what network they're on? Verizon doesn't
> seem to find it that important to tell you who you roam on through the
> America's Choice Network. Likewise, Nextel doesn't see fit to notify
> people when they're not on Nextel's Network, but rather a "Nextel
> Partners" network, of which nearly every "second teir" market they cover
> is a member of.
>
> And even better, Cingular customers don't seem to mind very much that
> they're not told which markets are Cingular's native network, and which
> markets (such as NYC) are actually run by T-Mobile.
>
> Along the same lines, Sprint PCS doesn't go through pains to tell people
> that they're actually on Alamosa PCS (Arizona, Texas, and the West), or
> Horizon PCS (midwest markets), and probably soon Qwest. Why? because
> from a billing perspective, it doesn't matter. The rates are the same
> and the features for the most part are the same, and the coverage is
> designed such that for all intensive purposes, your phone will operate
> as if it were on Sprint's native network.
>
> Likewise, a Qwest wireless customer will probably not need to care
> whether they are on Qwest or Sprint's network, because the billing and
> features won't be any different, and the check still gets cashed by the
> same people.
>
> > Wireless coverage isn't transparent to customers
> > like landline service.
>
> How not? I just described above several instances by virtualy every
> major carrier where native coverage is augmented by affiliate networks
> and most subscribers are generally unaware that a change has occured.
>
> > An d I am very aware of the local rankings
> > of coverage and we ARE consistently higher than Sprint where
> > we do have coverage.
>
> Good for you! I'm certain Qwest customers will probably continue to
> enjoy that coverage for quite a while yet.
>
> > Who cares who you would keep employed IF you a manager.
>
> Actually, I am.
>
> > There are a lot of pissed off people here because the f******
> > Qwest CEO practically destroyed the company and its credibility
> > by encouraging funny accounting and then tried to blame the
> > accounting firm. You bet I'm pissed off.
>
> So now Qwest management is the problem, and NOT Sprint?
>
> I think you need to find out who your anger is really directed at here
> before you vent.

"ccvcv" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Independent drive testing. One of which was done very
> recently. Of course, Qwest doesn't cover as large an
> area as Sprint. But where they do it is better. Especially
> in Seattle and Portland.


I live in the Minneapolis metro area and I assure you, QWest does not rank
well compared to any other carrier here. Anybody I know that was on QWest
has long since switched to some other provider.

Tom Veldhouse

I heard that Qwest used to have a pretty good network when they first
started out but over time Sprint has caught up and surpassed them. Do to
their severe financial situation plus the fact that they are continually
losing customers I doubt they have been putting much money into their
network for improvements.

--
-Larry
Sprint user since 1997



ccvcv <[email protected]> wrote in article <[email protected]>:
> Independent drive testing. One of which was done very
> recently. Of course, Qwest doesn't cover as large an
> area as Sprint. But where they do it is better. Especially
> in Seattle and Portland.
>


[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

Portland Oregonian says differently, as does the Wall Street Journal.

They both say Qworst will resell SprintPCS service in areas where Qwest has
no licenses, so Qworst becomes a semi-virtual carrier.



On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:48:03 -0700, bnj <[email protected]> wrote:

>Sounds like slamming to me. If a Qwest wireless customer
>wanted Sprint they buy it.
>
>http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030725/1247000587_1.html
>

--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

Actually you are wrong. Qwest in Minn. ranks higher than
Sprint IN the area it has coverage.



"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

> "ccvcv" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Independent drive testing. One of which was done very
> > recently. Of course, Qwest doesn't cover as large an
> > area as Sprint. But where they do it is better. Especially
> > in Seattle and Portland.
>
> I live in the Minneapolis metro area and I assure you, QWest does not rank
> well compared to any other carrier here. Anybody I know that was on QWest
> has long since switched to some other provider.
>
> Tom Veldhouse

You got that one right. Absolutely nothing is getting built.
But nothing has been shut off either except capacity sites.



Larry Thomas wrote:

> I heard that Qwest used to have a pretty good network when they first
> started out but over time Sprint has caught up and surpassed them. Do to
> their severe financial situation plus the fact that they are continually
> losing customers I doubt they have been putting much money into their
> network for improvements.
>
> --
> -Larry
> Sprint user since 1997
>
> ccvcv <[email protected]> wrote in article <[email protected]>:
> > Independent drive testing. One of which was done very
> > recently. Of course, Qwest doesn't cover as large an
> > area as Sprint. But where they do it is better. Especially
> > in Seattle and Portland.
> >
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

Come again. Show me when this was said in these papers.




"John Bartley K7AAY (ex-KGH2126)" wrote:

> Portland Oregonian says differently, as does the Wall Street Journal.
>
> They both say Qworst will resell SprintPCS service in areas where Qwest has
> no licenses, so Qworst becomes a semi-virtual carrier.
>
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:48:03 -0700, bnj <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Sounds like slamming to me. If a Qwest wireless customer
> >wanted Sprint they buy it.
> >
> >http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030725/1247000587_1.html
> >
>
> --
> Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

"ccvcv" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually you are wrong. Qwest in Minn. ranks higher than
> Sprint IN the area it has coverage.
>

Back that up! If you ask one person, you might get the answer you are
looking for. But QWest covers the entire Twin Cities metro, and I assure
you they are not rated highly here. JD Powers rated Voicestream the highest
here last year.

Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
>
> "ccvcv" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Independent drive testing. One of which was done very
> > recently. Of course, Qwest doesn't cover as large an
> > area as Sprint. But where they do it is better. Especially
> > in Seattle and Portland.
>
> I live in the Minneapolis metro area and I assure you, QWest does not rank
> well compared to any other carrier here. Anybody I know that was on QWest
> has long since switched to some other provider.

yeah, and despite what ccvcv says. Qwest is a NON player in the seattle
area.

ccvcv wrote:

> BTW Is Intents and Purposes not Intensive Purposes

I stand corrected. But if you must search so hard to find fault in my
arguments that you have to resort to correcting grammar, then I guess
I'll gladly take my lumps on that.


> In this modern age of lack of disclosure (phone companies
> being the worst) they should inform all customers what will
> soon happen.

And who said they wouldn't notify people? It would be rather stupid to
suddenly increase your customers' coverage and keep mum about it.

> Would you feel better if I told you my name was John Smith?
> Would you hire a private eye to verify this?

No. As I said before, I know all I need to know:

1. That you're someone who loves to nurse a vendetta,
2. Because you think you're going to lose your job, you feel it
necessary to find ways to convince people that ANY attempt to partner
Qwest with Sprint would be bad for customers even though you have little
evidence (other than the threat of losing your job) to support your claim,
3. You've shown your ignorance on telecom policy issues by branding a
potential Qwest-Sprint deal as slamming when it doesn't fit the
definition and isn't even consummated yet, and
4. You have a clear and total disregard for nettiquette. Otherwise
you'd find one identity, true or false, and stick to it.

If I were you - someone who honestly thinks their job is about to be
downsized - I'd quit whining in this newsgroup and clearly showing your
bias, and concentrate my energy on finding another job.


> You wouldn't know what my actual name really was even if
> I told you. There are TOO many good reasons to not identify
> myself on NGs. You might even be able to come up with a
> few on your own.

Yeah, I have. And if your boss knew, you'd be fired with cause, and NOT
because of any acquisition-based downsizing.

> And you have a winning personality?

Oh, I'm not the most sociable creature, but at least I conduct myself in
here in such a way that I'm not ashamed of using my real name. And I
have a tendency to stick by what I say, rather than say something and
then blatantly deny that I said it in the very same thread, such as you
have here:

> I didn't accuse Sprint of slamming.

"Sounds like slamming to me." That's what you said when you start this
thread, and I've already posted a link to the google archive. So where
did that *NOT* imply slamming?


> But Qwest is doing something
> very similiar to it despite the letter of the law.

Okay, first off, Qwest has done NOTHING. Nothing's been signed yet, at
least not of this writing, and there are no details of any agreement
yet. So how can you judge something as slamming "despite the letter of
the law" when nothing's been inked yet?

Second, the FCC's definition of slamming - the letter of the law, as you
say - doesn't apply to corporate acquisitions, affiliate network
agreements or roaming partnerships. In fact, it doesn't even apply to
wireless service. The very first sentence of the FCC definition clearly
establishes that Slamming policies apply to local, long distance,
intraLATA, interLATA, or international long distance service. Nowehere
in there is wireless even considered.

Finally, even IF we apply the definition of slamming to wireless
service, this VERY SPECULATIVE article that you originally referred
people to (and I assume you're referencing) makes it pretty clear that
Qwest's customers will still be doing business with Qwest. And even if
it so happens that Qwest wireless customers become full blown Sprint PCS
customers, it's hard to make a case for slamming when the agreement was
mutual between the two carriers, and the original carrier won't do
business with those customers or carry calls on their network anymore
(or, in the case of selling their network to Sprint, no longer HAS a
network to do wireless business with). So you're pretty much implying
that it's more acceptable for Qwest to drop all their customers, and
when they complain about their dead cell phones, the response will be
"sorry folks, you're SOL" rather than transition them to a different
network.


> Full disclosure is
> such a nice thing these days. What do you have against it?

Nothing. But can you demonstrate that Qwest has hidden anything about
this from their customers?

I'm pretty sure you can't, considering nothing has even been agreed upon
yet.